Tag Archives: education

Intersectional Jewing

jew_tears_intensify

Concerning the jew victim narrative, AKA the jew version of history, which provides the much longer-term foundation for the past century’s jew-defined/jew-driven anti-White “anti-racism” and post-WWII identity politics. The latest twist in the jew narrative concerns intersectionality, which encompasses all the bitter squabbling over rank in the anti-White victim hierarchy. The Occupy Wall Street movement called this hierarchy the progressive stack.

Broadly put, intersectional jewing is what happens when one form of jewing comes into conflict with another. The conflict I focus on here arises mainly out of the clash between two jew narratives: the lie that jews are “white”, and the lie that Whites are evil. There is also a clash between the jew “anti-racism” fraud and the ongoing developments coming out of White science, mostly having to do with genetics and race.

In this podcast I reexamine a number of older topics and connect them with more recent examples.

The intersectional jewing connection first clicked for me while writing about Bret Weinstein at Evergreen. The Tuvel Affair and Trans-Reality are all about the jewing and counter-jewing around sexual degeneracy and transracialism/crypsis.

An early example was discussed in Liberalism as a Suicide Pact, which has to do with the common kikeservative assertion that “muh liberalism/constitution is not a suicide pact” (for the jews) originating from Jackson’s dissent in Terminiello.

The jewsmedia white-washing of the kikeservative Trump administration is discussed in A Tale of Two Steves: Decoding the Ongoing Bannonocaust and Intrigue in Trump’s Palace.

Non-White/anti-White jew double-talk is covered in Jews Debate Whiteness and Jew Identity: Non-White, Anti-White.

Ezra Levant jewsplains the jewing of “hate speech” jewing in Canada.

Lawrence Auster’s The First Law of Jewish Influence.

Alt-jew/JRx: On the Significance of the Neo in Neo-Reaction.

Jonathan Haidt at Duke: Two incompatible sacred values in American universities. A description of Haidt’s this-jewing-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-jews shtick:

“When I went to Yale, in 1981, it said above the main gate ‘Lux et Veritas’: Light and Truth. We are here to find truth,” Haidt says as he paces the stage at the Students for Liberty conference in Washington. “This is our heritage all the way back to Aristotle, Plato, Socrates.” But the pursuit of truth is being supplanted by a new mission, he warns, the pursuit of social justice. He paraphrases Marx: “The point is not to understand the world; the point is to change it.”

It’s human nature to make things sacred — people, places, books, ideas, Haidt says. “So what’s sacred at a university?” he asks. “Victims are sacred,” he answers. And a victimhood culture offers only two ways to get prestige: Be a victim, or, if you can’t manage that, stand up for victims. How? “By punishing the hell out of anyone who in any way, shape, or form, even inadvertently, marginalizes a member of a victim class.”

He clicks to reveal a slide titled “The Six Sacred Groups.” “The Big 3″ are Blacks, Women, LGBT. “The Other 3″ are Latinos, Native Americans, Disability. The list of sacred victims, he says, is growing. Among the newly sacrosanct are Muslims, transgender, and Black Lives Matter. “I’m in no way saying these are not victims,” Haidt says. “I’m not dismissing claims of systemic racism. I’m just pointing out that the quasi-religious conflicts we have on campus nowadays tend to revolve around these groups.”

Hysterical Jamie Kirchick’s Dykes vs. Kikes. The official response from the dykes:

Zionism is an inherently white-supremacist ideology. It is based on the premise that Jewish people have a God-given entitlement to the lands of historic Palestine and the surrounding areas. This ideology has been used to justify dozens of laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel, segregated road systems in the West Bank, and forced removal of Palestinian families from their homes in order to make way for Jewish-only housing, among other violent and discriminatory practices. We recognize that Zionism is not synonymous with Judaism, but instead represents an ideology that uses legacies of Jewish struggle to justify violence.

The Weinstein Problem is Evergreen

two_jews_discuss_anti-racism

It takes an hour of dancing around for these two jews, Rubin and Weinstein, to get across what’s happening at Evergreen State College – that Weinstein has been mistaken for White and thus falsely accused of “racism”, that he is in fact an anti-White jew. In Weinstein’s Wall Street Journal op-ed and short interview with Tucker Carlson he avoids mentioning these particular aspects of his identity, though they are crucial to making sense of the controversy. It is only over the course of the long interview with his tribemate that it emerges Weinstein is only speaking out, and being given sympathetic jewsmedia attention, because he sees himself as a righteous jew and “anti-racist”.

The exchange between Rubin and Weinstein is so long and elaborately coded because they both well understand that bluntly stating what’s going on would give the game away. The name of the game is “anti-racism”, a jew-led and racially-motivated assault on Whites whose scope and harm extends far beyond this recent and relatively minor incident at Evergreen. The “social sciences” departments at universities have for decades effectively served as “anti-racist” weapons labs and proving grounds, where anti-White rhetoric and tactics are developed and tested before being deployed more broadly for use by governments and corporations.

“Anti-racism” is a full-spectrum assault. At one end are jews who openly identify and organize as jews to advance the interests of jews. These jews claim moral authority as an historically marginalized and oppressed minority while barking commands at ostensibly non-jew institutions. On the other end of the spectrum are jews who infiltrate and influence ostensibly non-jew institutions from the inside, where they dissimulate as “white”. These jews claim moral authority as “fellow whites” while shitting on Whites.

There are more jews along the spectrum than at either end – some more pro-jew, others more anti-White. But all their “anti-racism” pushes in the same general direction, faulting Whites for being White while excusing jew jewing. The terminology of semitical correctness is orwellian, the rationale tautological. Opposition to the assault on Whites can by definition only come from “racists”. Noticing that the assault on Whites is led by jews, or that jews network to protect each other from such targeting, is “anti-semitism”. To distinguish Whites from jews is “racist”. To fail to distinguish jews from Whites is “anti-semitism”.

So what’s going on at Evergreen is really just a bit of blowback. “Anti-racism” has always been a mask for anti-Whitism, but its true nature is now becoming more overt. It is starting to materialize as official restrictions and physical attacks on Whites, unabashedly justified as compensation for “White privilege” or “White supremacy”. The attack has progressed to the point that any White in a position of power or privilege who might unapologetically identify as White has already been removed, so now it is starting to redound somewhat onto the army of transracialist jews who have steadily and stealthily taken their place.

The controversy around Evergreen shines a light on the “anti-racism” double-talk. For years, when the “Day of Absence” was a passive-aggressive non-White boycott targeting Whites, Weinstein sympathized. He even thought it wan’t effective enough. Now that the event has metastasized into a thinly-veiled White ban, where anyone with whitish skin is actively harassed, Weinstein is suddenly opposed. His various attempts to explain this change are telling.

Speaking in brief to a general audience Weinstein is dishonest. Put on the spot about his racial motives by Carlson, the otherwise articulate Weinstein “uhh… wells…” his way past it. He’s just “deeply progressive” and “troubled about what this implies about the state of the left”. He specifically blames the Evergreen administration for his troubles, and particularly George Bridges, though he struggles to explain why. Credulous Carlson fails to press Weinstein, all too eager to mistake him as a victim of the “Campus Crazyiness” rather than one of its quite willing and conscious proponents.

In his WSJ op-ed Weinstein is even less forthcoming about his identity and motives. Instead he focuses on channeling Niemöller, painting himself as a canary in the coalmine. Here too Weinstein lays the blame on Bridges, though apparently only for being more committed to the anti-White “anti-racist”/”social justice”/”critical theory” agenda than he is himself.

It is only when speaking at length with Rubin, who cohencidentally happens to be a friend of Weinstein’s brother, that we get a glimpse of Weinstein’s real identity and motive. Early on Rubin asks Weinstein why he changed his position on Evergreen’s anti-White “Day of Absence”, why he is only now speaking out. Weinstein explains, “I’m jewish, and, umm, alarm bells go off when I’m told I’m not supposed to be somewhere”.

Much later in the interview Rubin kids Weinstein about his “deep progressive” shtick and they share a knowing chuckle. Weinstein smirks as he admits he’s an “anti-racist”. He complains there isn’t enough “nuance” in existing narratives, either on campus or in the jewsmedia, wishing he could just say, “oy vey, stop attacking me already, I’m an anti-White jew”, without saying it.

Indeed, Weinstein is “anti-racism” personified, the tip of a gigantic but largely hidden and ever-shifting jew-berg. He’s vilified by anti-White goyim, who actually hate him for behaving like a jew, but who would never dare say so because that would be “anti-semitism”. And he’s lionized by White goyim, who mistake him as a “fellow white”, but who would never dare say so because that would be “racism”. To top it off he paints himself as the victim while he calls for the head of his nominal boss. As he subtly intimates to Rubin, Bridges’ crime is in taking “anti-racism” too far, thus failing to protect jews like himself from the harmful effects of the anti-White war they are waging.

The Tuvel Affair

trust_me_fellow_whites_this_has_nothing_to_do_with_jewing

A major (((identity politics))) hissyfit spilled out of its jewniversity incubator and into the broader jewsmedia limelight over the past month or so. The controversy was triggered by “feminist philosopher” Rebecca Tuvel’s paper, In Defense of Transracialism:

In this article, I argue that considerations that support transgenderism extend to transracialism. Given this parity, since we should accept transgender individuals’ decisions to change sexes, we should also accept transracial individuals’ decisions to change races. I entertain and reject four objections that suggest a society should not accept an individual’s decision to change races.

Wikipedia’s Hypatia transracialism controversy page provides a semitically correct overview of the affair so far, naming the most prominent personalities involved and linking the most significant critiques and articles. My intent is to call attention to the role jews and jewing play in the affair, a crucial aspect which has been effectively ignored and even obscured by all the squid ink.

In this case, as usual, jews are jewing away with impunity. Big-mouthed jews and their toxic ideas dominate the conversation, on all sides, across academia and media as a whole, yet it goes on unrecognized as such. What sets this particular example apart is the issue at the heart of it, so-called transracialism, which helps enable jews to jew with impunity.

Transracialism is really just a new term for an old fraud, commonly known as passing. In the case of jews passing has a long history and is better understood as a form of crypsis.

Goyposing in academia and media today typically involves jews actively posturing as “white” so as to claim the moral authority to say something poisonous to or about “fellow white people”. More generally, the pretense that jews are “white” serves to shift attention and blame for jew over-representation or malfeasance onto Whites, toward whom jews actually feel no loyalty or sympathy. The effect of this white-washing also manifests indirectly in critics – jew or otherwise – who obviously feel freer to criticize jews under the pretext that they’re attacking “whites”.

Every facet of this fraud can be found in the Tuvel affair. Is Tuvel a jew? That’s not clear, and nobody in the jewstream is even asking. Several critics and defenders assert Tuvel is “white”, but there are a few indications that she’s a jew, part-jew, or somehow otherwise connected to jews. For one thing, her surname is suspiciously rare and jewy. For another, she began her argument in favor of transracialism by pointedly referring to the exclusionary attitude of jews, a sore subject for mischlings/mamzers. Here’s how Tuvel put it:

Generally, we treat people wrongly when we block them from assuming the personal identity they wish to assume. For instance, if someone identifies so strongly with the Jewish community that she wishes to become a Jew, it is wrong to block her from taking conversion classes to do so. This example reveals there are at least two components to a successful identity transformation: (1) how a person self-identifies, and (2) whether a given society is willing to recognize an individual’s felt sense of identity by granting her membership in the desired group. For instance, if the rabbi thinks you are not seriously committed to Judaism, she can block you from attempted conversion. Still, the possibility of rejection reveals that, barring strong overriding considerations, transition to a different identity category is often accepted in our society.

Visibly jewy Nora Berenstain has been broadly cited for the earliest, most hysterical response to Tuvel’s argument, though her name is omitted from many such accounts. Berenstain’s Facebook post, since deleted, provides a taste of state-of-the-art semitical correctness promoted in jewed academia:

Tuvel enacts violence and perpetuates harm in numerous ways throughout her essay. She deadnames a trans woman. She uses the term “transgenderism.” She talks about “biological sex” and uses phrases like “male genitalia.” She focuses enormously on surgery, which promotes the objectification of trans bodies. She refers to “a male-to- female (mtf) trans individual who could return to male privilege,” promoting the harmful transmisogynistic ideology that trans women have (at some point had) male privilege. In her discussion of “transracialism,” Tuvel doesn’t cite a single woman of color philosopher, nor does she substantively engage with any work by Black women, nor does she cite or engage with the work of any Black trans women who have written on this topic.

Berenstain’s complaint was that Tuvel should have cited more non-Whites and non-men (like Berenstain) specifically because they aren’t White men. This screech was soon echoed in a public condemnation, signed by more than a hundred outraged “scholars” who demanded that the publisher take down Tuvel’s article. To Berenstain’s cry for preferential treatment for non-White non-men they added their own, and specifically faulted Tuvel for mentioning jews jewing openly as jews:

It mischaracterizes various theories and practices relating to religious identity and conversion; for example, the author gives an off-hand example about conversion to Judaism

The initial wave of screeching about Tuvel’s argument triggered an even larger wave of corporate jewsmedia counter-screeching. The back and forth echoes on still. Though plenty of the original screeching was overtly anti-White, the counter-screeching completely ignored this. To the extent any attention was paid to the limited mention of jews, it was only to dismiss it.

In fact, another reason to suspect that Tuvel has some connection to The Tribe is how her critics have chimped out almost entirely over her argument, without calling for personal sanctions, as they normally would for someone who is White. She also has many jew defenders, most of whom don’t even care what her argument is, which is not something they normally do for someone who is White.

“Right”-posing jew Ben Shapiro, for example, blamed “leftist academia” and wrote:

as an Orthodox Jew, I can say that the essay characterizes Judaism’s view of conversion quite properly

Academic insider jew Brian Leiter is a better example. Leiter was among the first and most prominent of the counter-screechers, but studiously avoided the anti-White/pro-jew attitudes of the screechers and instead focused on defending Tuvel from “defamation”:

I confess I’ve never seen anything like this in academic philosophy (admittedly most signatories to the “open letter” are not academic philosophers, but some are). A tenure-track assistant professor submits her article to a journal, it passes peer review, it is published, others take offense, and the Associate Editors of the journal declare that “Clearly, the article should not have been published” and that the abuse to which the author is being subjected is “both predictable and justifiable.”

He filed this claim under “Authoritarianism and Fascism Alerts”. Tellingly, just last December he was mocking White genocide, filed under “Academic Freedom”, hinting that jews like himself define genocide and don’t see themselves as White. More tellingly, in 2010 he wrote a bit he filed under “What is Philosophy?” titled Jewish Poker:

Ephraim Kishon has a story called “Jewish Poker”. Jewish poker is played without cards so all you can do is bluff – and you have to bluff high. I think that this is the secret of Derridean post-modernism as currently practised in U.S. humanities departments: in the end, it’s all competitive hyperbole – who can be more radical?

Someone starts off with a huge unsupported generalization. For example, they write a book saying that the whole of Western thought is under the hegemony (good word) of (say) “logocentrism”, that its genealogy has to be exposed and deconstructed to reveal the Other that it “covers over and disavows”.

That’s a high bid, but you can top that. Why not write a review saying that this is to give “the Other” a “hegemonic status”, that this too needs to be deconstructed and given a genealogy? Say that the re-valuation of values hasn’t been radical enough, that “the Nietzschean trans-valuation is far from being complete: in its second stage, at the threshold of which we find ourselves today, it will necessitate a de-hierarchization of the already inverted values, so that alterity, too, would lose its newly acquired transcendental status, just as sameness and identity did in twentieth-century thought.”

Kishon described the environment not only in philosophy, but in jewed academia more generally. At the time Leiter himself noted that “the philosophy blogosphere worked itself into quite a tizzy over these remarks, no doubt because they hit so close to home”, i.e. because contemporary philosophy is so jewed. Seven years later this is just as relevant to the Tuvel affair, where so much of the screeching is based on the unquestioned premise that philosophy is too White, and none of the counter-screeching tizzy has anything to do with defending Whites.

So what is the fuss? I think I covered the basics well enough in Trans-Reality. The jewed academia/jewsmedia consensus back then was to hail gender-bending Jenner as a brave hero and to mock frizzy-haired Dolezal as a bad joke. The response to Tuvel’s argument about transracialism only hammers home that consensus.

Race is a social construct but transracialism isn’t real, cry the jews pretending to be “white”. “Racism” is prejudice plus power, cry the jews who dominate the anti-White academia and media.

One last example from anti-White jewsmedia jewess Pheobe Maltz Bovy, who literally just wrote a book jewsplaining how jews are “white”, and Whites have privilege, but jews don’t. In this case she wrote to say there’s nothing to see here:

In The Article, Tuvel “suggest[s] that Dolezal offers an important opportunity for us to think seriously about how society should treat individuals who claim a strongly felt sense of identification with a certain race. When confronted with such an individual, how should we respond?”

I’m suggesting, in turn, that we take a step back and ask: Are we, in fact, confronted with such individuals? Because if we’re not (and Tuvel admits as much), then we’re giving rather a lot of weight to the well-being of made-up, thought-experiment-inhabiting people, and putting their feelings above those of people who do in fact exist and do in fact make their wishes known.

Put another way: Transgender is a thing, transracial is not. There are people who suffer tremendously from being assigned a gender at birth that does not match up with who they are. These are real people who really exist. Are there people in the same boat where race is concerned?

Like most of the screechy anti-White elite Bovy regards “transgenderism” as unquestionably natural and normal. Unlike most everyone else Bovy demonstrates how jew-to-”white” transracial goyposing works while claiming it doesn’t exist:

There are certainly cases of racial identity being ambiguous, and yes, racial identity has margins. (Trust me, I’m an otherwise white person not considered white by white supremacists!) That, however, is something else.

With transracial, meanwhile, literally all that’s at play – again, where actual people are concerned – is, there are many black people who find “transracial” to be, well, racist. But there isn’t any competing concern of the transracial community because guess what? There isn’t a transracial community, let alone an oppressed transracial community. So what you’re defending, in effect, when you defend the non-existent transracial community is the right to be gratuitously offensive. Because that’s the demand white people – not all, but lots – are actually making.

“Trust me, fellow white people, transracialism has nothing to do with jews or their jewing. It’s all about whites oppressing blacks.”

Fake News, Real Power

cy_vz-euqaaps7v-jpglarge

ADL jew Etzion Neuer twits: “Today’s @NYDailyNews front page confirms what @ADL_NY knew: it has been far too busy in the last month. #fighthate”

Neurotic jews busy painting mangled swastikas. The jewsmedia and lobbyists busy screeching, “FIGHT HATE!!1!”. Kikeservatives in government and academia busy serving the jews:

Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) and Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) have introduced the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act which according to a statement on Casey’s website is meant to “to ensure the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has the necessary statutory tools at their disposal to investigate anti-Jewish incidents” on college campuses.

Citing a recent FBI report stating over half of all reported hate crimes in 2015 were of an anti-Semitic nature, the senators claim their bill is necessary to provide the DOE with the “firm guidance” it needs to determine “what constitutes anti-Semitism.”

The bill’s definition of “anti-Semitism” is directly culled from a 2010 State Department memo, which The University of California Board of Regents considered adopting as official policy, before ultimately agreeing to a softer condemnation of “Anti-Semitism, anti-semitic forms of anti-Zionism,” but not a blanket ban on anti-Zionist expression itself.

Unfortunately, the bill also proposes the following as examples of hate crimes:

  • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust
  • Demonizing Israel by blaming it for all inter-religious or political tensions
  • Judge Israel by a double standard that one would not apply to any other democratic nation

No other other group has government departments specifically dedicated to promoting their interests. No other group enjoys the privileged protection of speech codes and laws which specifically condemn and even criminalize their political opponents. Only the jews.

Decoding the Racial Political Discourse, 2016

shlomo_says_phobia

Democrats, Not Trump, Racialize Our Politics, by Heather Mac Donald, City Journal, 27 Nov 2016:

Democratic (((pundits))) are calling on their party to court working-class and non-coastal whites in the wake of this month’s electoral rout. But the Democratic Party is now dominated by identity politics, which defines whites, particularly heterosexual males, as oppressors of every other population in the U.S. Why should the targets of such thinking embrace an ideology that scorns them?

The most absurd Democratic meme to emerge from the party’s ballot-box defeat is the claim that it is Donald Trump, rather than Democrats, who engages in “aggressive, racialized discourse,” in the words of a Los Angeles Times op-ed. By contrast, President Barack Obama sought a “post-racial, bridge-building society,” according to New York Times reporter Peter Baker. Obama’s post-racial efforts have now “given way to an angry, jeering, us-against-them nation,” writes Baker, in a front-page “news” story.

[Ta-Nehesi] Coates’s melodramatic rhetoric comes right out of (((the academy))), the inexhaustible source of Democratic identity politics. The Democratic Party is now merely an extension of (((left-wing))) campus culture; few institutions exist wherein the skew toward Democratic allegiance is more pronounced. The claims of life-destroying trauma that have convulsed (((academia))) since the election are simply a continuation of last year’s campus Black Lives Matter protests, which also claimed that “white privilege” and white oppression were making existence impossible for black students and (((other favored victim groups))).

Hillary Clinton employed classic Democratic “racialized discourse” throughout the campaign. During a Democratic presidential primary debate in January 2016, Clinton agreed that it was “reality” that police officers see black lives as “cheap.” In a February debate, she accused Wisconsin, along with other states, of “really systemic racism” in education and employment. In July she called on “white people” to put themselves in the shoes of African-American families who “need to worry” that their child will be killed by a police officer. When Clinton called half of Trump’s supporters “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it” who belonged in a “basket of deplorables,” she was speaking the language of (((the academy))), now incorporated into (((the Democratic worldview))).

Mac Donald attempts to spin the conflict as a black war on Whites, but the Clinton campaign was speaking the anti-White language of jews.

See also: Decoding the Racial Political Discourse (2012).

israel_asa

Answering the American Studies Association

ASA Members Vote To Endorse Academic Boycott of Israel, American Studies Association, 16 December 2013.

This statement, and especially the Endorsements attached below it, provide a good example of the jewish narrative blowing back on jews. The swift and explosive response from jews outside the ASA illustrates, yet again, that jews aren’t “white” in any meaningful political sense and their ethnostate isn’t subject to the usual standards by which “white” states are judged.

The divisively unanswerable questions of what it means to be ‘pro-Israel’, Max Fisher, 17 December 2013:

On Monday night, the heads of two major pro-Israel organizations and the editors of two publications associated with support for Israel gathered for a relatively routine event: a panel discussion at the 92nd Street Y, in New York, on “what it means to be pro-Israel.” A few hours earlier, members of the American Studies Association, an association of some 5,000 American studies college professors, had voted 2 to 1 to boycott Israeli universities. Shortly after the panel moderator and editor-in-chief of the Jewish Daily Forward, Jane Eisner, raised the issue, the panel broke up in a relatively spectacular walk-off.

In debates about Israel, disagreements that might seem minor on the surface – the “tyranny of small differences,” as one Israel-watcher put it to me – are often something much graver. If you know what to watch for, you can observe somber, serious people like these four panelists talk around underlying issues so sensitive they are rarely addressed or even acknowledged. Issues that are almost always below the surface, but too deep to come out except in moments of the most heated candor, often surprising even the people naming them.

These are questions so difficult, and that cut so close to the core of what it means to be an American supporter of Israel, that even scholars or professionals with decades invested in Israeli issues will hesitate to touch them. But you can hear them, if only hinted at, in arguments like Monday evening’s. Is it good or bad for Israel that more American Jews are questioning Israeli policies? At what point, if ever, should one’s support for Israel be limited by the needs of non-Israelis touched by the conflict? Is a Zionist’s responsibility to guard Israel’s survival, to guard Israel’s interests or merely to concern oneself dispassionately with the issues facing the country?

Some of these questions are simply unanswerable. Some are trick questions. Some are highly taboo; the question about competing interests can easily echo accusations, made by the most anti-Semitic movements in history, that Jews harbor “dual loyalties” and cannot be trusted. But many are just extremely difficult, touching on issues of identity, politics and personal responsibility. They cause conflict both because no one can agree on the answers, or often even the terms of the questions themselves, and because everyone ends up judging one another according to their own personal and widely varying standards.

What’s best for the jews? This is the central question around which jewish arguments about politics, identity and everything else revolve. To a jew this question is “unanswerable” only in the sense that they never stop asking it. By exaggerating their disagreements on answers jews downplay their agreement on the question.

In asking this question jews show no fear of tricks or taboos. What they fear are the wholly different questions which inevitably form in the minds of non-jews. Who are these jews? What are they doing? Why should anyone tolerate the conflict and harm they cause? These questions, and the “anti-semitic movements” which coallesce in response, have historically been instigated by the words and deeds of the jews themselves, by jewish parasitism, by jews infiltrating, manipulating and exploiting their host society.

In the case at hand the jews are more and more openly directing the resources of the United States toward Israel. They anticipate a hostile reaction because one is justified. The existence of Israel, their fruiting body, only highlights jewish parasitism. It inspires even nominally “liberal” jews to fret most illiberally over their particularist identity and interests, even when those interests are being served so clearly at the expense of others. It inspires even nominally “conservative” jews, like John Podhoretz, to tantrum at domestic tribemates on behalf of foreign tribemates.

How do they answer the ASA? By orchestrating political and academic boycotts, of course. Jews in government are moving to cut off government funds to ASA supporters and jews in universities are directing them to cut off support for ASA. No “dual loyalty” here. These jews in positions of power demonstrate that they see themselves as jews first, and see the institutions over which they have some measure of power as vehicles for advancing the interests of jews. One institution has vexed them, so they are using their influence over others to exact punishment.

Jews know they don’t face any substantial, organized opposition. The only real difficulty they have is in communicating about their conspiracy. Their problem is more cryptological than ideological. How to discuss and advance jewish interests while suppressing any “anti-semitic movement”? Their answer, as always, is to do both, because they are in essence the same.

susan_patton

Two Lessons in Privilege

There were two substantial tremblers along the White/jew faultline this week. In both cases a jewess published a public comment concerning higher education which triggered a viral outpouring of fear and loathing, the brunt of which has been directed at Whites.

The first was caused by Susan Patton’s OPINION: Letter to the Editor, at The Daily Princetonian, 29 March 2013. The most controversial part:

When I was an undergraduate in the mid-seventies, the 200 pioneer women in my class would talk about navigating the virile plains of Princeton as a precursor to professional success. Never being one to shy away from expressing an unpopular opinion, I said that I wanted to get married and have children. It was seen as heresy.

For most of you, the cornerstone of your future and happiness will be inextricably linked to the man you marry, and you will never again have this concentration of men who are worthy of you.

Here’s what nobody is telling you: Find a husband on campus before you graduate. Yes, I went there.

An Alumna’s Advice for the Young Women of Princeton: Marry My Son, by Eveline Chao, The Daily Beast, 30 Mar 2013:

In a letter published in The Daily Princetonian on Friday, Susan A. Patton, the president of the class of ’77, offered her “advice for the young women of Princeton.”

One of the more-quoted lines that immediately began zinging across social media read, “Here’s what nobody is telling you: Find a husband on campus before you graduate. Yes, I went there.”

Patton continued: “As Princeton women, we have almost priced ourselves out of the market … You will never again be surrounded by this concentration of men who are worthy of you.”

There was also:

“I am the mother of two sons who are both Princetonians. My older son had the good judgment and great fortune to marry a classmate of his, but he could have married anyone. My younger son is a junior and the universe of women he can marry is limitless.”

The image conjured for most was of a rich, ‘50s housewife who dabbles in eugenics. Unsurprisingly, the blogosphere went nuts.

Patton was also called a “WASP,” “offensive,” and “sheltered.” One person said, “Thank god you didn’t have daughters.” On Twitter, @DesiderioAArnaz tweeted, “Feminism just died at Princeton.” Another user named @dylanmatt appended the link with, “A stirring call for the genetically gifted to band together and form a master race.” I myself am a Princeton alum, and when former classmates posted the link on Facebook, some speculated that it was an April Fools’ joke.

A phone call Friday with Patton confirmed that it was not.

“I’m mortified,” she said of the online comments. But when asked if she would like to clarify or change anything she’d said, she replied, “Not really.”

She also revealed a few details that might not reconcile her with feminists, but which do counter the impression given by her letter.

First, she isn’t a WASP. (“It was intended as advice from a nice Jewish mother. That’s all it was.”)

Second, she isn’t exclusively a homemaker. Patton has run her own HR consulting and executive coaching business in New York City for 20 years. She didn’t work the first five years after her first son, now class of 2010, was born, but has ever since.

And third, she isn’t married to a Princeton grad. In fact, she’s just out of what she calls a “horrible” divorce, after 27 years of marriage. “My husband’s academic background was not as luxurious as mine, and that was a source of some stress,” said Patton. “I think he felt a certain level of resentment.”

What Patton recommends seems to be common sense. An admonition to mate only with someone of the same race would make it even better. The main thing that makes any such advice controversial is jewish influence – whether in favor of womb-shrivelling feminism or anti-White anti-”racism”, in both academia and media. Naturally this consideration goes unmentioned, at least by jews and especially in the mainstream media.

By several accounts the strongest rebuke came the same day Patton’s letter was published. Maureen O’Connor’s Princeton Mom to All Female Students: ‘Find a Husband’ is full of snark and describes Patton as a luddite with a depressing worldview. Five hours later came a sheepish update, Q&A: Princeton Mom Wishes She Married a Princeton Man, in which O’Connor suddenly appears very understanding and even sympathetic. A day before Chao wrote her piece for the Daily Beast, O’Connor had the same conversation, and cited the same “clarifications” for her sudden change in attitude:

Patton spoke by phone from her home in the Upper East Side, where she runs her own business as a human resources consultant and executive coach. She was in the midst of reading responses to her letter when I called. “I’m astounded by the extreme reaction. Honestly, I just thought this was some good advice from a Jewish mother,” she laughed.

The understanding is that being a jewish mother is completely different from being a White mother. Later observers incorporate the jewish mother card into their story from the get go.

Susan A. Patton wrote to Princeton student newspaper urging female students to snag man, Mail Online:

Susan A. Patton, a proud Princeton University alumna and the living affirmation of the meddling Jewish mother stereotype, raised some eyebrows this week

A WASP could expect the recriminations and condemnations to eventually be accompanied by tangible sanctions. A jewess raises eyebrows and inspires some ambiguous finger-wagging about jewish stereotypes.

James Taranto didn’t do either. Instead, he quickly rode to Patton’s defense. Why? Well, Susan Patton Told the Truth. Oh, and:

It took some bravery for the young Miss Patton to go to Princeton, for she was not a legacy and was anything but a daughter of privilege. As she explained in a 2006 article for Princeton Alumni Weekly, her mother was a survivor of Auschwitz, a German death camp in Poland; her father, of Bergen-Belsen, a concentration camp in Germany.

The irony here is in Taranto insisting Patton isn’t privileged just before explaining how she is. He plays the camp survivor card right up front, presumably because he regards it as relevant to his point, which is that Patton is a righteous hero so these stupid/crazy/evil critics should back off.

Alyssa Rosenberg took a different tack, explaining The Real Problem With Susan Patton’s s ur-Jewish Mother letter to the editor is the Daily Princetonian:

Patton’s letter is exactly the kind of thing that is tremendously clicky, to the extent that it was probably worth it financially to the Daily Princetonian to publish it even if the site ended up offline because of the massive influx of readers.

All in all, it’s a very successful, cynical execution of a well-established strategy.

Rosenberg’s argument makes little sense except perhaps as a projection of her own obsession with clicks, money and cynical strategy.

Miraculously, Patton got some time to explain herself on television. When Megyn Kelly asked Patton to respond to the crux of the controversy, which is “elitist snobby Ivy League people [who] think they’re better than we are”, Patton did not play the jewish mother card. Instead she lied, claiming, “I’m not suggesting that anybody’s better than anybody”.

Except she did. In two different ways. The controversy concerns her letter where she used the term “worthy of you”, and explicitly acknowledged, “Yes, I went there.” She was talking about intelligence, not even race, but it was considered as such, at least at first. That changed as soon as she quickly played the jewish mother card, which is the second way she suggested somebody is more worthy.

At the heart of the “jewish mother” trope is the quite conscious concern that:

The only option in life for her children is college and (for the girls) marrying a nice Jewish boy (often parsed even more with “A nice Ashkenazic boy” or “A nice Ashkenazic doctor” or “A nice Ashkenazic doctor with an apartment in New York and plenty of frequent flier miles to visit your mother whom you never cawl anymore”). Likewise, a Jewish son is expected to bring home a nice Jewish girl. No matter how nice, however, this girl will not be good enough. Heaven forbid he marries a Shiksa Goddess.

As long as critics considered her White Patton’s suggestion of intellectual superiority was regarded as beyond the pale. That changed as soon as she played the jewish mother card. Being a “good jewish mother” implies group superiority. Though for a White mother this would only be regarded as more damning, for jews it miraculously serves to blunt the attack, and shifts the focus elsewhere.

It’s interesting to consider how this story might have unfolded differently if Susan Patton were White. Would she have written such a letter? Would it have been published? Would James Taranto have lept to her defense? Would feminists now be organizing a boycott of her business?

On the same day that Susan Patton’s letter was published, the Wall Street Journal published a letter from Suzy Lee Weiss, To (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me:

If only I had a tiger mom or started a fake charity.

For starters, had I known two years ago what I know now, I would have gladly worn a headdress to school. Show me to any closet, and I would’ve happily come out of it. “Diversity!” I offer about as much diversity as a saltine cracker. If it were up to me, I would’ve been any of the diversities: Navajo, Pacific Islander, anything. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, I salute you and your 1/32 Cherokee heritage.

To those claiming that I am bitter—you bet I am! An underachieving selfish teenager making excuses for her own failures? That too! To those of you disgusted by this, shocked that I take for granted the wonderful gifts I have been afforded, I say shhhh—”The Real Housewives” is on.

As with Patton, controversy ensued. Suzy Lee Weiss: ‘Entitled’ high school senior sparks firestorm after writing biting open letter to the Ivy League schools that rejected her, Mail Online, 4 April 2013:

The article outraged many, who accused her of being entitled, self-indulgent and even racist.

‘Entitled little brat,’ one Twitter user said, as another said: ‘Choking on the petulant privilege of Suzy Lee Weiss & hoping she matures out of her ignorance rather than being bolstered by a book deal.’

Another directed a message to Weiss, saying: ‘Your letter reveals your republican homophobic leanings and hatred of others not exactly like you. Grow up.’

Despite the criticism Weiss, like Patton, was given television time to explain herself. On Today she claimed it was a joke, satire, that she was poking fun at political correctness. This contradicted her story that before writing she cried to her mother about it and then her sister. Weiss added that diversity is “a wonderful thing” and admitted that her letter led to job offers.

If you’re wondering how a whiny high schooler got their letter printed by the Wall Street Journal in the first place, it helps to know that her sister Bari Weiss, is a former Wall Street Journal editor. Bari is also now a senior editor at Tablet Magazine. Like Susan Patton, Suzy Lee Weiss is visibly jewish. Unlike Susan Patton, who played the jewish mother card early, the only mention I’ve found of Suzy Lee Weiss’ jewish identity is an article at Tablet, Suzy Lee Weiss Fires Back on the Today Show:

A story we’ve been following closely–how could we not? she’s mishpucha

Because they can’t yet have the internet and ban us from using it too, Whites who are curious about bits of tribal code can still read things like The Yiddish Handbook, which suggests 40 Words You Should Know:

mishpocheh

Or mishpokhe or mishpucha. It means “family,” as in “Relax, you’re mishpocheh. I’ll sell it to you at wholesale.”

That strikes quite a different tone than Weiss’ deprecatory reference to herself as a “saltine cracker”.

Commentary Magazine, the neocon journal of the American Jewish Committee, provided two supportive editorials. After decades of non-stop jewish propaganda downplaying race, in particular by reducing it to skin color, in When Will Universities Understand Real Diversity? Michael Rubin complains:

The sad fact is that universities—both private and public—are essentially racist: They will gladly boil down diversity to the color of skin.

It’s Not Only the Colleges that Weren’t Honest with Suzy Weiss, by Seth Mandel comments on the Today interview mentioned above:

Guthrie then looks at Weiss and says: “I mean, for one thing, some people read this and they say you are being very cavalier about the importance of diversity.” Weiss dismisses the attempted shaming by saying the piece was satire. But here Weiss isn’t giving herself enough credit. The problem with the section of Weiss’s op-ed about diversity was that it wasn’t an exaggeration: had Weiss followed her joking suggestions, she very well might have been accepted by any number of universities whose admissions officers probably cringed at the op-ed because Weiss was describing actual applicants they happily accepted over Weiss.

Guthrie may have seen Weiss’s words as cartoonish, but here’s the point: they accurately describe the attitudes of the deans at America’s top universities. Weiss didn’t lampoon them so much as expose them to a wider audience.

Weiss can shrug it off because she knows she has a network of unflinching support. Diversity doesn’t change that. And anyway, jews understand “diversity” is code for less White. The problem, and the reason for all the beating around the bush at Commentary, is that jews, especially “conservative” jews, want to be seen as “white” by Whites, but they also want to be seen as “diverse”, or at least exempt from any cost of “diversity”.

The conflation of Whites and jews as “white” is deliberate. Julie Gerstein, writing at The Frisky, provides one example. In Entitled High School Senior Suzy Lee Weiss Makes Me Sad For The Future Gerstein writes about Weiss’ “screed” and “failure”:

Maybe the lesson for Ms. Weiss isn’t that she’d have gotten into college if only she’d “worn a headdress to school,” but that colleges are no different than the general population: They don’t like assholes. And they, like the rest of us, don’t appreciate deep-seated resentment, mild racism and selfishness in potential friends, mates and students.

Maybe, Ms. Weiss, you were rejected because your piss-poor attitude of entitlement and privilege seeped out of every word you wrote on your college application. No one “lied to you” about what colleges want. They want you to “be yourself,” as long as the “you” in question isn’t a smug jerk who believes you’re entitled to get everything you want just because you want it. And that, Ms. Weiss, is where you went wrong.

Entitled, “To (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me,” the piece is a good old fashioned spiteful rant, flinging glasses of white whine into the eyes, not only of every college that denied her admission, but also every person who has ever been accepted into a college, ever.

It’s possible that Gerstein doesn’t recognize Weiss as a jew, but not likely. What she’s definitely doing is aiming a spiteful rant at “whites” that would not likely have been written, much less published at The Frisky, if it had been about jews.

Suzy’s mistake, it seems, was interpreting the advice “Just be yourself” literally. Like perhaps someone told her, “Applying to colleges? Ah, just be yourself,” and she accepted this as an instruction to pursue no activities other than being herself.

Being yourself is not a talent.

Unless of course you’re a jewish mother. Being jewish worked for Weiss and she didn’t even have to play that card herself. With a little help from the WSJ and Today she’s enjoying the privilege of being a jewish-looking girl with a jewish-sounding name that a jewish media outlet or two regard as family. Whether she was whining about her jokes or joking about her whining it all worked out well enough. At least for her. Meanwhile, Gerstein and others are busy slagging “whites” over it.

Kirsten West Savali, writing at Clutch Magazine, which is explicitly targeted at black women, provides an example of the desired effect. For Middle-Class White Girls When Being Privileged Isn’t Enough:

Suzy did what any self-respecting privileged, young, white woman would do — she used her familial connections with the WSJ to pave the way for her brilliant od-ed, which otherwise may have languished in darkness, never to be seen by human eyes. This literary phenomenon, which places the blame squarely on the shoulders of those pesky black and brown people who don’t deserve to go to college because, well, they’re black and brown, has exposed the world’s best-kept secret: “If it ain’t white, it ain’t right.”

See how that works? A jewess complains. She gets press and benefits. Whites get the blame. Savali, in her budding wisdom, at least gets a bit of the crying/joke:

Weiss, in her budding wisdom, exposed the mantle of white privilege for what it should be: Proud, unapologetic and unconcerned with anyone not blessed to posses it. She offered herself up as the scape-goat to be ridiculed. Though she did receive job and internship offers for her take-down of reverse racial discrimination, that was never the point.

The point was to reveal the face of the forthcoming post-racial state of America. A place where white students are rewarded for mocking the tenuous foundation of equality on which this country is built and education remains a coveted club to which only middle-class white students are entitled.

Equality is a delusion which mainly afflicts Whites. The point is that today jews and jewish interests rule academia and media, among other things. The fact that Whites get the blame for what jews do is evidence of jewish privilege, not “white” privilege, and certainly not White privilege.

angry_asian

Goodbye “Model Minority”, Hello Angry Horde

Asians are angry about alexandra’s anti-asian video about “manners”. Referring to Asians in the Library – UCLA Student’s Racist Rant, Angry Asian Man writes:

This is so incredibly ignorant, it’s almost hard to believe that she’s for real. I’ve re-watched it several times now, and I actually find myself laughing at the sheer stupidity. For those who want the literary version, here’s the full transcript of her rant. It’s equally hilarious and infuriating.

He links a few responses from UCLA administration and various asian groups condemning the video, and Alexandra Wallace grovelling for forgiveness. AAM’s blog post currently concludes with the following:

UPDATE: The UCLA Asian American Studies Center has also released a statement on “Asians in the Library.” An excerpt:
“Asians in the Library” is a travesty on many levels, representing an attack on Asian and Asian American students and their families and undermining UCLA as a global university with deep ties to communities and institutions in Asia and other parts of the world. It entails a “new racism” by foregrounding students who speak Asian languages and have different family traditions, as it insidiously groups and attacks UCLA’s American-born as well as our international students of Asian ancestry. As the only University of California campus without a diversity requirement, UCLA surely needs to implement a diversity requirement that will expose every student to the task of living civilly with people of different origins, backgrounds, orientations, and beliefs, whether they are born here or come from abroad.

A diversity requirement might not be such a bad idea.

Two UCLA Professors Seek Campus Diversity Requirement:

In the aftermath of a racially offensive Internet video, two University of California, Los Angeles professors are urging the administration to require diversity training for students in hopes of discouraging such incidents.

Dr. David Yoo, director of the Asian American Studies Center, and Dr. Lane Hirabayashi, department chairman of Asian American studies, issued a joint statement this week observing that, “We still have much work to do before we can claim to live in a ‘post-racial’ society.”

The phrase “ching chong” is considered an ethnic slur that historically mocked Chinese speaking patterns but sometimes has been aimed at other Asians. Asian Americans comprise the largest racial group among 26,000 UCLA undergraduates at 37 percent; Whites make up 32 percent.

Both UCLA scholars called on the administration “to respond institutionally since the video addresses larger issues of campus climate and culture.” They called the video rant “a travesty representing an attack on Asian and Asian American students and their families and undermining UCLA as a global university. This type of prejudice and use of derogatory words cannot be tolerated.” They urged the administration to implement a diversity requirement for students.

UCLA Chancellor Gene Block released a statement on Monday afternoon saying he was “appalled” by Wallace’s comments and that her opinions do not reflect nor represent UCLA.

“I recoil when someone invokes the right of free expression to demean other individuals or groups. Speech that expresses intolerance is indefensible,” Block said.

Colleges around the country have steadily added academic courses with a diversity component or global cultures aspect, requiring undergraduates to complete a certain number of credit hours as a graduation prerequisite.

The problem is indeed ignorance – an ignorance deliberately created by an orwellian twisting of words which pathologizes Whites for being “intolerant” of “diversity”. The unspoken premise is that White displacement and dispossession is right and good, therefore Whites are mentally or morally defective for objecting in the slightest way. Even the confused rant of a lone, exasperated, powerless White against “ching chonging” “asians in the library” is an intolerable, indefensible crime. Wallace will be punished for her insolent outburst, and the already widespread indoctrination of Whites as to our proper subordinate and silenced place will be further broadened and accelerated.

Those who lie about their motives and methods have no real standing to blame others for being ignorant of them. Dishonesty engenders ignorance. But let’s not pretend these anti-White “anti-racist” liars are decrying our lack of understanding. They mock us for it. When they call Whites ignorant it is to abuse and intimidate us. Their orwellian use of the term is nothing but a pretentious, exceptionally intolerant way of trying to shut someone up by calling them stupid.

As with most Whites, Wallace has been misguided and probably used to imagine that the goal of her university and the overarching regime is to educate people, to create a fair, tolerant society where all people are treated equally. Condemned by powerful, race-conscious, self-interested asian organizations and insulted and threatened with violence by faceless hordes of angry asians, Wallace is now finally getting a real education.